Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 2:57:23 GMT
He wasn't. Neither would I be if someone were trying to kill me and I instead killed them. I'd be guilty of no crime. And I don't even have half the leg to stand on that Mace did. He actually had the authority to make arrests in the first place. The only thing the scene you quoted proves is that the other Jedi should've listened to Mace sooner and taken action when they had the chance. Sometimes "taking great care" isn't the right maneuver. When facing ultimate evil, quick, decisive sanctioning is the only way to go. Toward the end of WW2, America had a choice to make. We could've "taken great care" and let things play out according to conventional military rules of the era. This would have prolonged the war by years and extended the death toll on both sides. Instead, America took quick, decisive action and dropped two nukes. America will always be held accountable for that and in some debate circles will be the ones remembered in infamy. Sometimes there is no pure, benevolent, non-violent way through a crisis. Sometimes heroes carry scars, even shame. C'est la vie. I'm glad we dropped those bombs, Mace and the other Jedi should've whacked Palpatine if/when they had a chance and the people in this world who criticize the methods required of life's heroes have the luxury of doing so, even though it signals their cowardice. And exactly what government was Mace Windu the head of? Windu wasn't a government man. He was akin to the Pope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 3:04:16 GMT
And exactly what government was Mace Windu the head of? Windu wasn't a government man. He was akin to the Pope. A Pope who would have been Emperor himself had he killed Palpatine. Of course that is until the proper democracy could be restored, with people of his choosing.... Wow, that sounds familiar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 3:10:52 GMT
Windu wasn't a government man. He was akin to the Pope. A Pope who would have been Emperor himself had he killed Palpatine. Of course that is until the proper democracy could be restored, with people of his choosing.... Wow, that sounds familiar. Wrong. Even Palpatine didn't declare himself Emperor until after the attack. Even so, a short-lived Jedi-dominant Republic would have been a lot better end than storming Tokyo. <shudder>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 3:13:58 GMT
Windu wasn't a government man. He was akin to the Pope. A Pope who would have been Emperor himself had he killed Palpatine. Of course that is until the proper democracy could be restored, with people of his choosing.... Wow, that sounds familiar. Not only that, but you're attributing another person's words to Windu. It wasn't Windu who made the suggestion to replace senators. Lest you forget, the Jedi Masters were ruled by a Council. Yoda wasn't in favor of Kenobi training Skywalker, but alas, Yoda was out-voted. Who's to say that even if Windu had wanted to replace any senators - which he never suggested - he could've gotten the vote passed on the Council? That's an assumption.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 3:28:23 GMT
A Pope who would have been Emperor himself had he killed Palpatine. Of course that is until the proper democracy could be restored, with people of his choosing.... Wow, that sounds familiar. Not only that, but you're attributing another person's words to Windu. It wasn't Windu who made the suggestion to replace senators. Lest you forget, the Jedi Masters were ruled by a Council. Yoda wasn't in favor of Kenobi training Skywalker, but alas, Yoda was out-voted. Who's to say that even if Windu had wanted to replace any senators - which he never suggested - he could've gotten the vote passed on the Council? That's an assumption. OK, him and enough sycophants to get the will done in that scene where they plotted how they were going to take control of the senate. There was a reason that Qui Gon Jinn did not like that council that Lucas placed high above the people in a literal ivory tower and avoided them. The same reason he was the first to come back and teach the surviving Jedi what he learned from the Whills. I've been making this argument for years now, and I have yet to lose it. The scenes and the scripts support every conclusion I've made spanning all 6 Lucas films. And the funny thing is, the ST has done nothing to weaken my argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 4:09:31 GMT
Not only that, but you're attributing another person's words to Windu. It wasn't Windu who made the suggestion to replace senators. Lest you forget, the Jedi Masters were ruled by a Council. Yoda wasn't in favor of Kenobi training Skywalker, but alas, Yoda was out-voted. Who's to say that even if Windu had wanted to replace any senators - which he never suggested - he could've gotten the vote passed on the Council? That's an assumption. OK, him and enough sycophants to get the will done in that scene where they plotted how they were going to take control of the senate. There was a reason that Qui Gon Jinn did not like that council that Lucas placed high above the people in a literal ivory tower and avoided them. The same reason he was the first to come back and teach the surviving Jedi what he learned from the Whills. I've been making this argument for years now, and I have yet to lose it. The scenes and the scripts support every conclusion I've made spanning all 6 Lucas films. And the funny thing is, the ST has done nothing to weaken my argument. Hold up, dude. We're not having a debate about where SW is going or what it's internal morality has to say about how the Jedi Council was behaving. We were having a debate about whether it's acceptable to wield the power of the dark side and the light side simultaneously (Qui Gon's enlightenment and the Whills have zilch to do with that particular topic), which was then sidetracked into Windu's moral authority to violently sanction the Emperor. So let's try to stay on track. I don't really care what debates you've had with others about the intended progression of Star Wars' morality. The matters at hand - dark + light simultaneously and Windu's specific moral authority to sanction Palpatine - don't rely on what you're talking about. The fact is, we have no ruling on the matter within the story itself because it's a hypothetical. We are left only to our individual powers of logic. You relying on this self-proclaimed impenetrable argument about the grander scale only serves to muddle the debate, and, ironically, puts you in the position of ruling in an ivory tower. Also, Qui Gon is hardly the character to point to for moral authority. We're talking about the same Qui Gon who defied the Council's wise advice to leave Anakin on Tatooine? That Qui Gon? The guy who insisted on bringing Darth Vader into the mix? The guy who was self-righteous enough to disobey not only one superior, but an entire Council of authority so that the thing he believed in so self-righteously could in turn destroy the Jedi, slaughter innocent children, kill trillions of beings and destroy the Republic? That Qui Gon? C'mon, even Kenobi who was just a padawan knew Qui Gon was wrong. Qui Gon's ties to the Whills have nothing to do with him having a morally superior role to play in this saga. Zilch. They have everything to do with the facts that a.) he focused more on the Living Force than the other Jedi did (which is personal happenstance, not morality) and, more importantly, b.) his exploits to planets that put him in a position to learn from the Priestesses and Shaman. These exploits were also happenstance. The current Jedi Council already preached all the tenants of a form of blissful life after death. The fact that they didn't preach personal consciousness as part of this belief does not make their teaching less moral. In fact, it's morally equivalent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 4:20:14 GMT
OK, him and enough sycophants to get the will done in that scene where they plotted how they were going to take control of the senate. There was a reason that Qui Gon Jinn did not like that council that Lucas placed high above the people in a literal ivory tower and avoided them. The same reason he was the first to come back and teach the surviving Jedi what he learned from the Whills. I've been making this argument for years now, and I have yet to lose it. The scenes and the scripts support every conclusion I've made spanning all 6 Lucas films. And the funny thing is, the ST has done nothing to weaken my argument. Hold up, dude. We're not having a debate about where SW is going or what it's internal morality has to say about how the Jedi Council was behaving. We were having a debate about whether it's acceptable to wield the power of the dark side and the light side simultaneously (Qui Gon's enlightenment and the Whills have zilch to do with that particular topic), which was then sidetracked into Windu's moral authority to violently sanction the Emperor. So let's try to stay on track. I don't really care what debates you've had with others about the intended progression of Star Wars' morality. The matters at hand - dark + light simultaneously and Windu's specific moral authority to sanction Palpatine - don't rely on what you're talking about. The fact is, we have no ruling on the matter within the story itself because it's a hypothetical. We are left only to our individual powers of logic. You relying on this self-proclaimed impenetrable argument about the grander scale only serves to muddle the debate, and, ironically, puts you in the position of ruling in an ivory tower. Also, Qui Gon is hardly the character to point to for moral authority. We're talking about the same Qui Gon who defied the Council's wise advice to leave Anakin on Tatooine? That Qui Gon? The guy who insisted on bringing Darth Vader into the mix? The guy who was self-righteous enough to disobey not only one superior, but an entire Council of authority so that the thing he believed in so self-righteously could in turn destroy the Jedi, slaughter innocent children, kill trillions of beings and destroy the Republic? That Qui Gon? C'mon, even Kenobi who was just a padawan knew Qui Gon was wrong. Qui Gon's ties to the Whills have nothing to do with him having a morally superior role to play in this saga. Zilch. They have everything to do with the facts that a.) he focused more on the Living Force than the other Jedi did (which is personal happenstance, not morality) and, more importantly, b.) his exploits to planets that put him in a position to learn from the Priestesses and Shaman. These exploits were also happenstance. The current Jedi Council already preached all the tenants of a form of blissful life after death. The fact that they didn't preach personal consciousness as part of this belief does not make their teaching less moral. In fact, it's morally equivalent. It's all about playing with the fire that is darkness, and getting burned. It's about a council that admittedly did that in their discussions about taking over the Senate, they toyed with dark paths, they became apprentices to both and they burned. I'm even pretty sure that even those cartoons had Yoda revealing just that. I don't watch those things, but I've heard talk on boards that Yoda was in one of those "canonical" cartoons saying that the Jedi had slipped to the dark side in their last days. I can go find it if you wish, but it all leads to the same place. You play with fire, you get burned, and thus the relevance to this topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 4:24:46 GMT
Hold up, dude. We're not having a debate about where SW is going or what it's internal morality has to say about how the Jedi Council was behaving. We were having a debate about whether it's acceptable to wield the power of the dark side and the light side simultaneously (Qui Gon's enlightenment and the Whills have zilch to do with that particular topic), which was then sidetracked into Windu's moral authority to violently sanction the Emperor. So let's try to stay on track. I don't really care what debates you've had with others about the intended progression of Star Wars' morality. The matters at hand - dark + light simultaneously and Windu's specific moral authority to sanction Palpatine - don't rely on what you're talking about. The fact is, we have no ruling on the matter within the story itself because it's a hypothetical. We are left only to our individual powers of logic. You relying on this self-proclaimed impenetrable argument about the grander scale only serves to muddle the debate, and, ironically, puts you in the position of ruling in an ivory tower. Also, Qui Gon is hardly the character to point to for moral authority. We're talking about the same Qui Gon who defied the Council's wise advice to leave Anakin on Tatooine? That Qui Gon? The guy who insisted on bringing Darth Vader into the mix? The guy who was self-righteous enough to disobey not only one superior, but an entire Council of authority so that the thing he believed in so self-righteously could in turn destroy the Jedi, slaughter innocent children, kill trillions of beings and destroy the Republic? That Qui Gon? C'mon, even Kenobi who was just a padawan knew Qui Gon was wrong. Qui Gon's ties to the Whills have nothing to do with him having a morally superior role to play in this saga. Zilch. They have everything to do with the facts that a.) he focused more on the Living Force than the other Jedi did (which is personal happenstance, not morality) and, more importantly, b.) his exploits to planets that put him in a position to learn from the Priestesses and Shaman. These exploits were also happenstance. The current Jedi Council already preached all the tenants of a form of blissful life after death. The fact that they didn't preach personal consciousness as part of this belief does not make their teaching less moral. In fact, it's morally equivalent. It's all about playing with the fire that is darkness, and getting burned. It's about a council that admittedly did that in their discussions about taking over the Senate, they toyed with dark paths, they became apprentices to both and they burned. I'm even pretty sure that even those cartoons had Yoda revealing just that. I don't watch those things, but I've heard talk on boards that Yoda was in one of those "canonical" cartoons saying that the Jedi had slipped to the dark side in their last days. I can go find it if you wish, but it all leads to the same place. You play with fire, you get burned, and thus the relevance to this topic. Hmmm...I thought it was the afore-mentioned genius idea that Qui Gon had to bring Vader in the mix that was the cause of said burns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 4:31:49 GMT
It's all about playing with the fire that is darkness, and getting burned. It's about a council that admittedly did that in their discussions about taking over the Senate, they toyed with dark paths, they became apprentices to both and they burned. I'm even pretty sure that even those cartoons had Yoda revealing just that. I don't watch those things, but I've heard talk on boards that Yoda was in one of those "canonical" cartoons saying that the Jedi had slipped to the dark side in their last days. I can go find it if you wish, but it all leads to the same place. You play with fire, you get burned, and thus the relevance to this topic. Hmmm...I thought it was the afore-mentioned genius idea that Qui Gon had to bring Vader in the mix that was the cause of said burns. No the cause of the burns wasn't bringing Anakin in. It was the Jedi falling to darkness. LOL, it wasn't hard to find a clip of Yoda admitting that on YouTube at all. Just search for Yoda on Star Wars Rebels and it popped up. He knows why they failed. I may have to start watching those cartoons. I like all the confirmation bias feeding stuff I can find if I look. lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 4:42:20 GMT
Hmmm...I thought it was the afore-mentioned genius idea that Qui Gon had to bring Vader in the mix that was the cause of said burns. No the cause of the burns wasn't bringing Anakin in. It was the Jedi falling to darkness. LOL, it wasn't hard to find a clip of Yoda admitting that on YouTube at all. Just search for Yoda on Star Wars Rebels and it popped up. He knows why they failed. I may have to start watching those cartoons. I like all the confirmation bias feeding stuff I can find if I look. lol. I'm aware of the clip. Seen it before. It does not prove anything. Yoda's is still only a perspective and a hypothetical one at that. Neither the storyteller, nor the audience, and certainly not the characters caught up in the story, can say what would or would not have happened had the Council stuck to their guns and not accepted Anakin as a trainee. That story was never allowed to unfold. Furthermore, Yoda isn't warning Ezra not to fight. He's warning him about the way he may choose to fight. Additionally, things are different from Yoda's perspective; having passed through the veil, he is interested in his current form of living and sees it as a superior life. That doesn't mean squat to the grunts who are still alive and feel the pain caused by evil beings in the life they are currently living. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 4:45:56 GMT
Hmmm...I thought it was the afore-mentioned genius idea that Qui Gon had to bring Vader in the mix that was the cause of said burns. No the cause of the burns wasn't bringing Anakin in. It was the Jedi falling to darkness. LOL, it wasn't hard to find a clip of Yoda admitting that on YouTube at all. Just search for Yoda on Star Wars Rebels and it popped up. He knows why they failed. I may have to start watching those cartoons. I like all the confirmation bias feeding stuff I can find if I look. lol. Also, Yoda was seemingly proven wrong even after his enlightenment on Dagobah. But of course, now I'm getting into the rut of trying to argue morality based on a hypothetical storyline that was never allowed to unfold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 5:25:53 GMT
No the cause of the burns wasn't bringing Anakin in. It was the Jedi falling to darkness. LOL, it wasn't hard to find a clip of Yoda admitting that on YouTube at all. Just search for Yoda on Star Wars Rebels and it popped up. He knows why they failed. I may have to start watching those cartoons. I like all the confirmation bias feeding stuff I can find if I look. lol. I'm aware of the clip. Seen it before. It does not prove anything. Yoda's is still only a perspective and a hypothetical one at that. Neither the storyteller, nor the audience, and certainly not the characters caught up in the story, can say what would or would not have happened had the Council stuck to their guns and not accepted Anakin as a trainee. That story was never allowed to unfold. Furthermore, Yoda isn't warning Ezra not to fight. He's warning him about the way he may choose to fight. Additionally, things are different from Yoda's perspective; having passed through the veil, he is interested in his current form of living and sees it as a superior life. That doesn't mean squat to the grunts who are still alive and feel the pain caused by evil beings in the life they are currently living. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." It's all about how one chooses to "fight". Its about finding ways to stay away from the darkness (anger, fear, hate) while still "winning". That's why this is all tied to if an apprentice can train in the dark and the light. And the answer is not if you don't want to risk being consumed by it. It's about going in with a purpose of winning by "not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love" as horribly hokey as her act appeared as she kept Finn from sacrificing himself, her line about it was at the core of the saga. Training in the darkness involves fighting from your anger, hate, and fear. Dabbling in it leads to consumption. Windu, et al, dabbled in the darkness, and were consumed. Luke was able to "confront and go beyond the darkness" when he miraculously dropped his own hate, anger, and fear then turned off his saber to win. He had faith that his father would see the light and save what he loved. Vader's act to the Emperor was done to save the one he realized he loved when that loved one was going to die. Windu's act was to destroy what he feared and hated when what he feared and hated lay "helpless" at his feet, Palpatine was conniving and dark enough to know that Windu would try to kill him, just as he wanted him to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 5:36:23 GMT
I'm aware of the clip. Seen it before. It does not prove anything. Yoda's is still only a perspective and a hypothetical one at that. Neither the storyteller, nor the audience, and certainly not the characters caught up in the story, can say what would or would not have happened had the Council stuck to their guns and not accepted Anakin as a trainee. That story was never allowed to unfold. Furthermore, Yoda isn't warning Ezra not to fight. He's warning him about the way he may choose to fight. Additionally, things are different from Yoda's perspective; having passed through the veil, he is interested in his current form of living and sees it as a superior life. That doesn't mean squat to the grunts who are still alive and feel the pain caused by evil beings in the life they are currently living. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." It's all about how one chooses to "fight". Its about finding ways to stay away from the darkness (anger, fear, hate) while still "winning". That's why this is all tied to if an apprentice can train in the dark and the light. And the answer is not if you don't want to risk being consumed by it. It's about going in with a purpose of winning by "not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love" as horribly hokey as her act appeared as she kept Finn from sacrificing himself, her line about it was at the core of the saga. Training in the darkness involves fighting from your anger, hate, and fear. Dabbling in it leads to consumption. Windu, et al, dabbled in the darkness, and were consumed. Luke was able to "confront and go beyond the darkness" when he miraculously dropped his own hate, anger, and fear then turned off his saber to win. He had faith that his father would see the light and save what he loved. Vader's act to the Emperor was done to save the one he realized he loved when that loved one was going to die. Windu's act was to destroy what he feared and hated when what he feared and hated lay "helpless" at his feet, Palpatine was conniving and dark enough to know that Windu would try to kill him, just as he wanted him to. I'll admit, it's a convincing argument, but it's still just a point of view. You infer that Windu's act was to destroy what he feared and hated, but the problem with that is that we're not intimately shown Windu's motivations. Who are you to say that he didn't fight to save what he loved (The Jedi Order) by attempting to sanction Palpatine? Along those same lines, Palpatine was only fighting to save what he loved: The Sith Plan (not to mention his own selfish desires, but he loved them nonetheless). This is the problem with silly moral slogans that have no depth in absolutes. In fact, this is the essential problem with the way the saga is trending - this movement toward the idea of "grey": without moral absolutes, you are left with nothing but a certain point of view. Don't forget, Anakin shared your point of view. The Jedi were evil. How'd that work out for his skin? Absolute evil - which is what Palpatine embodied - must be violently ended. This is the way of all sound moral texts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 5:59:51 GMT
It's all about how one chooses to "fight". Its about finding ways to stay away from the darkness (anger, fear, hate) while still "winning". That's why this is all tied to if an apprentice can train in the dark and the light. And the answer is not if you don't want to risk being consumed by it. It's about going in with a purpose of winning by "not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love" as horribly hokey as her act appeared as she kept Finn from sacrificing himself, her line about it was at the core of the saga. Training in the darkness involves fighting from your anger, hate, and fear. Dabbling in it leads to consumption. Windu, et al, dabbled in the darkness, and were consumed. Luke was able to "confront and go beyond the darkness" when he miraculously dropped his own hate, anger, and fear then turned off his saber to win. He had faith that his father would see the light and save what he loved. Vader's act to the Emperor was done to save the one he realized he loved when that loved one was going to die. Windu's act was to destroy what he feared and hated when what he feared and hated lay "helpless" at his feet, Palpatine was conniving and dark enough to know that Windu would try to kill him, just as he wanted him to. I'll admit, it's a convincing argument, but it's still just a point of view. You infer that Windu's act was to destroy what he feared and hated, but the problem with that is that we're not intimately shown Windu's motivations. Who are you to say that he didn't fight to save what he loved (The Jedi Order) by attempting to sanction Palpatine? Along those same lines, Palpatine was only fighting to save what he loved: The Sith Plan (not to mention his own selfish desires, but he loved them nonetheless). This is the problem with silly moral slogans that have no depth in absolutes. In fact, this is the essential problem with the way the saga is trending - this movement toward the idea of "grey": without moral absolutes, you are left with nothing but a certain point of view. Don't forget, Anakin shared your point of view. The Jedi were evil. How'd that work out for his skin? Absolute evil - which is what Palpatine embodied - must be violently ended. This is the way of all sound moral texts. I didn't see the story as saying that the Jedi were evil, nor do I believe that. The story tells me that: I the story told me that they fell to anger, fear, and hate slowly and were consumed, just like Yoda said later on that cartoon. Palpatine embodied the evil, and was violently ended when he was in the act of taking a life to save another one. George wrote the story, I just report what his story shows me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 15:39:40 GMT
I'm aware of the clip. Seen it before. It does not prove anything. Yoda's is still only a perspective and a hypothetical one at that. Neither the storyteller, nor the audience, and certainly not the characters caught up in the story, can say what would or would not have happened had the Council stuck to their guns and not accepted Anakin as a trainee. That story was never allowed to unfold. Furthermore, Yoda isn't warning Ezra not to fight. He's warning him about the way he may choose to fight. Additionally, things are different from Yoda's perspective; having passed through the veil, he is interested in his current form of living and sees it as a superior life. That doesn't mean squat to the grunts who are still alive and feel the pain caused by evil beings in the life they are currently living. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." It's all about how one chooses to "fight". Its about finding ways to stay away from the darkness (anger, fear, hate) while still "winning". That's why this is all tied to if an apprentice can train in the dark and the light. And the answer is not if you don't want to risk being consumed by it. It's about going in with a purpose of winning by "not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love" as horribly hokey as her act appeared as she kept Finn from sacrificing himself, her line about it was at the core of the saga. Training in the darkness involves fighting from your anger, hate, and fear. Dabbling in it leads to consumption. Windu, et al, dabbled in the darkness, and were consumed. Luke was able to "confront and go beyond the darkness" when he miraculously dropped his own hate, anger, and fear then turned off his saber to win. He had faith that his father would see the light and save what he loved. Vader's act to the Emperor was done to save the one he realized he loved when that loved one was going to die. Windu's act was to destroy what he feared and hated when what he feared and hated lay "helpless" at his feet, Palpatine was conniving and dark enough to know that Windu would try to kill him, just as he wanted him to. Pay close attention and look for the messages in this video clip about how you choose to fight. And about how a teacher and student deal with teaching the apprentice to deal with his inner Darkside.
|
|